Language desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 27

Tacitus quote spelling

In various websites the famous desolation quote is spelt this way: "Ubi solitudinem facuint pacem appellant" the u and i in faciunt are reversed. Is this just a spelling error, or is it a grammatical feature in Latin

"Ubi solitudinem facuint pacem appellant" gets 9 Google hits, while "Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant" gets 10,000, so I think it's safe to say it's just a typo. --TotoBaggins 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

faciunt is the present tense third person plural form of facio. It's been a while, but I don't think any Latin verbs that take -int as an ending. So just a spelling error. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I guess sint ends in -int.) The quote from Tacitus' Calgacus has been duly corrected above. See Tac. Hist. 4.17 for a nice parallel. Wareh 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd plural of the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive end in -erint; I think that and sint are the only times a verb ends in -int in Latin. So the only form of facio that ends in -int is fēcerint, both "they will have done" and "they may have done". —Angr

Meaning of these lyrics?

In the Nelly Furtado song "All Good Things" it says

Dogs were whistling a new tune

Barking at the new moon

Hoping it would come soon so that they could die

I mean it sounds all good and poetic but what exactly does it mean and what does it have to do with the rest of the song? Why do the dogs want to die? --124.180.103.210 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs generally have a great zeal for life, so I can't comment on that, but I note that dogs are unlikely to bark at the new moon, since it's (mostly) invisible. --TotoBaggins 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that the dogs do not want to die, but "all good things come to an end." Perhaps the dogs want to see the moon again so they can die happy, but their eventual death is certain, which is the theme of the song.--El aprendelenguas 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Continuum

Is it correct to say that Danish dialects and Norwegian dialects form a continuum?199.126.28.20 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out Differences between Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish?-Andrew c 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is fair to say that Danish dialects and Norwegian dialects do not form a continuum. The two dialect groups are separated by a rather large body of water that really prevents the existence of a continuum. There are no Norwegian dialects that are closer to a Danish dialect than they are to a Norwegian standard form. On the other hand, a good case can be made that Scandinavian dialects in general do form a continuum, in which a continuum exists between the dialects of Norway and those of western Sweden on the one hand, and between the dialects of southern Sweden, such as Scanian, and those of Denmark on the other. Marco polo 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the english equivalent of the name Diego?

what is the english equivalent of the name Diego? Gzuckier 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James. --LarryMac | Talk 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~no kidding? what about jaime?~~ never mind, I read the link. (and thank you)Gzuckier::

~~Jaime is addressed at the bottom of the article I linked.~~ OK, never mind :-) --LarryMac | Talk 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence Ya'acov => Iakobos => Iacobus => Iacomus => Gemmes => James also explains why supporters of James II of England were called "Jacobins" or "Jacobites". --TotoBaggins 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also see "Tiago" and "Iago" in Spanish. For example, Saint James is "Santiago". (Santiago de Compostela) Corvus cornix 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article San Diego, Diego is the Spanish name of Didacus of Alcalá, so it's a completely different name from James. A Dictionary of First Names (ISBN 0-19-211651-7) says, "Although it is often claimed to be an aphetic form of Santiago, it is clear that its regular Latin form in the Middle Ages was Didacus. This may possibly be a derivative of Greek didakhē teaching, but it is more likely that it represents a Latinized form of some native Iberian name." —Angr 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the symbol "L" mean?

What is the symbol at the start of "L-ascorbate" which is used, for example, in the article on Vitamin C. (I'm referring to the small, uppercase "L".) Does this have a special name? How would you vocalize this? That is, would one say "ell ascorbate" or would you say something else? Why is it used and written the way it is in the article? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to understand it really, but see Enantiomer. This has a bit about naming conventions including the "l-whatever". Friday (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More at Optical_isomerism#Naming_conventions DuncanHill 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles help a bit into putting this into context and I get the impression that it might be an anglicized greek letter, but what is the symbol called? And how is it vocalized when used in the example above? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's sometimes written as a plain old "l", pronounced, I assume "el". Not sure why they use the special l unless it's just to draw attention to the fact that it's about chirality. Friday (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L and D are short for Laevo- and Dextro-, from Latin (not Greek) roots meaning "left" and "right" -- see Optical_isomerism#By_configuration:_D-_and_L- AnonMoos 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if a person were giving a talk about this topic would they say "Laevo ascorbate" ? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually people say "L-ascorbate". Shorter and easier. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other famous L's are L-Dopa, which played a starring role in Awakenings, and L-Cysteine, a food additive mainly sourced from the hair of Chinese people (!). --TotoBaggins 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes: first, in American spelling it's "levo" rather than "laevo". Second, I've never seen the abbreviation written as a small capital before, only as an ordinary capital "L" or a lower case "l" ... but while I've read a number of books things that mention such chemicals, I haven't studied organic chemistry. --Anonymous, June 27, 22:45 (UTC).

Is this correct?

Then, maybe you'd be able to believe that the apple tree might be a really, truly story.

Is this really, truly a correct way say a story is factual rather than fictional? It seems off to me, but it was printed that way in a 100 year old book. If it is correct, why does it seems so wrong?--BirgitteSB 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds off to me is the use of truly as an adjective. I'd probably have said "really a true story". —Angr 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict after Angr): According to Wiktionary:truly, truly can only be used as an adverb, and therefore, it cannot modify a noun (in this case, story). The use of really is also questionable because of the comma; it's another adverb in the place of an adjective.--El aprendelenguas 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published that way, I'd think it could be intentional. Colloquially, and for effect, you can turn almost anything into an adjectival attribute. It's the exclamatory sense "Really, truly!" that's probably relevant (compare "a gee-whiz demonstration," "a golly golly wow revelation," etc.). Wareh 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in modern books it might be written as:

...might be a "really, truly!" story.

or something to that effect. At least that looks less painful to me... Tesseran 23:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a vegetarian

Sometimes people use the "argument" that since Hitler was a vegetarian, then being vegetarian is wrong. Is this a kind of logical fallacy? It's obviously faulty logic, but I'm wondering what kind. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation would seem to cover it. DuncanHill 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association fallacy. We actually mention the Hitler example in the article. Replacing 'A' with Hitler, 'B' with evil and 'C' with vegetarian, we get:

Premise Hitler is evil

Premise Hitler is also a vegetarian

Conclusion Therefore, all vegetarians are evil

— Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not that people who espouse this argument will ever comprehend this article. Maybe you guys can answer my next question as well. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wore a mustache. (So did Stalin for that matter) Therefore, wearing a mustache is evil. --Duomillia 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I love it. I actually saw this vegetarian argument being used on a Yahoo! message board. I argued that since Hitler was also a painter and a writer, that those were evil too. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were also the parody ads that said, "Hitler wore khakis". —Angr 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is the other argument, "Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore Hitler was evil." --Lambiam ^Talk 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us not-evil vegetarians would like to point out that the vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler is disputed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect people use this as an argument to point out the fallacy of saying that because Hitler did something it's bad, rather than seriously believing this is why vegetarianism is evil. Reductio ad Hitlerum is a common argument and this is a good example to make the point. Oh and Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe and Tom Selleck also has moustaches, one man may not prove anything but the evidence is adding up... Cyta 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a wikipedian. 213.48.15.234 10:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to conclude that all wikipedians are vegetarians with moustaches? JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life is unfair.

I remember in elementary school that when kids would complain that something was "unfair," the teacher would respond with "life is unfair." How does this justify an unfair action? Is there a logical fallacy in this? Thanks in advance. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there is a logical fallacy here. It seems to me that the teacher is not saying "life is unfair, therefore I can treat you unfairly," but rather "I understand that you feel this is 'unfair,' but life does not always conform to your conception of 'fairness.'" Carom 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always seems to me to be used in the sense of "I don't care if it's unfair". DuncanHill 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as "Yes, this is unfair. What you have neglected to consider is that not everything is fair, and the unfairness of something is not a valid objection to it." [Edit: I've always heard "life's not fair" instead, not that it matters.] Tesseran 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right Tesseran that it's more commonly "Life's not fair." It's been a while since elementary school. This might head into a more philosophical discussion unsuited to this board, but I often felt that teachers/adults/whoever would use "life's not fair" essentially as justification for behaving in an unfair matter, essentially an easy out. Instead of taking the time to make the situation equitable, simply saying a phrase in the guise of teaching someone a life lesson. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts: about 60,600 for "life's not fair", about 139,000 for "life is unfair". The Princess Bride has a nice expansion on the phrase: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." (At least, that's the wording in the movie; I don't know about the book.) --Anonymous, June 28, 2007, 00:10 (UTC).

Not that it's especially relevant, but the variant I remember is "life isn't fair," which returns 182,000 google hits (for what those are worth). Carom 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extension my mother always used when I was a kid was, "Life isn't fair. John F. Kennedy said that, and look what happened to him." Thus teaching me that complaining that life isn't fair will get you elected president. Or assassinated. Or something... —Angr 04:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that if the complaint is Aw mom/teacher, that's not fair!, the response is: Life isn't fair. If, on the other hand, the kid complains: Aw mom/teacher, that is unfair!, the response is going to be: Life is unfair. In other words, the response is morphed to echo (and thereby ever so slightly mock) the complaint. I don't think that as a response it is meant to stand up to ethical or philosophical scrutiny. It is a response that is selected for being unanswerable, and is a way of saying: I don't want to discuss this. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "You're right, but I'm not going to do anything about it."

As to the morphing, I agree. But I'm not going to do anything about it. :-) In Lambiam's first example, I think "that's not fair" should draw the response "life's not fair", while it's "that isn't fair" that gets "life isn't fair". --Anonymous, June 28, 06:45 (UTC).

The book does not necessarily correspond to the film (even in terms of major plot elements). I'm not sure if the statement is even in the book. The Jade Knight 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to tell my kids "Fare is what you give to the bus driver." in an attempt to drive home the idea that what they wanted (what's "fair") isn't necessarily what they should expect. JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Life is unfair, but it's unfair for everybody, so that makes it fair". See Central limit theorem Gzuckier 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my experience as a teacher was that student's ideas of what was 'unfair' were not always the best actions. For example, my students object that it is 'unfair' that students with severe learning disabilities get to take a shorter, easier test than they do, without considering the difference in difficulty it will pose to those students. Or they will complain that it is 'unfair' that some other class is taking a field trip and they are not, as if different classes don't do different activities every day. Children's ideas of fairness often require perfect sameness, and 'life is unfair' generally is a reminder that conditions of perfect sameness rarely occur in reality. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does rather bug me that people will tell kids not to expect fairness. Sure, there are factors they can't see which means that the apparent unfairness is actually fairer than they think, and so "life is unfair" is a lie-to-children, but it would be a better world if more people had an expectation of justice and a willingness to do something about it, and stifling that in children isn't going to work towards that. Marnanel 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (not a teacher, just a parent)[reply]

To reply to a complaint of unfairness with "life's unfair" tells a child that you don't care about fairness. As well as inevitably undermining the child's respect for and trust in you, it also teaches the child that "it's OK to be unfair". Hardly the behaviour of a responsible adult. Life is, indeed, often unfair, but that does not absolve us of our moral duty to promote fairness, rather it makes it even more of an imperative for us to act as fairly as we can, and to support and encourage others who seek fair treatment. DuncanHill 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen has it really; the lack of fairness usually complained about generally corresponds to things not going the way the child wants, rather than any real inequality. "That's not fair!" "You keep saying that. I wonder, what is your basis for comparison?" Skittle 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the idea that we teach kids to only expect fairness because otherwise it would 'stifle' them is A) A little patronising to the children (as if they minds are purely what teachers/family tell them and they are entirely influenced by what they are told) B) A little stuck in the realm of 'ideal world' scenario rather than reality. The key is to give children the encouragement to question things they disagree with, to push for what they believe in and to stand up against unacceptable behaviour. In doings so children will also need to learn the vital lessons that in real-life they will have to accept balances of power against them, they'll have to accept that sometimes what they say is not the 'be all and end all', that sometimes the things they fight to change will not happen. Maybe not forever, maybe not always, but at times they will encounter unfairness. I suspect that a child's understanding of fairness is gathered from slightly more sources than simply their calling 'unfair' and being told "life is unfair'. Or perhaps i'm expecting far too much from the children? ny156uk 01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never once said that we should "teach kids to only expect fairness". I said that we shouldn't tell them not to expect fairness on the grounds that life in general is not fair. These are not the same thing, so you're attacking a straw man. Marnanel 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a child says "that's not fair" then talk with them about why or how it isn't fair, explain to them why it needs to be that way, etc. To come out with "Life's not fair" does nothing constructive. DuncanHill 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Marnanel 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with DuncanHill on this one. I often feel that the phrase hid the message "it's OK to be unfair," when figures of authority should be promoting equality and explaining it to their children/students. I loved this quote, "that does not absolve us of our moral duty to promote fairness." Well said. Thanks for the excellent dialogue; it's so much more thoughtful and well-written than, say, the IMDb Message Boards. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know ... but I will just add this. When kids (children) say "that's not fair" -- it's really just kid-speak for "I didn't get my way" or "I didn't get what I want." Typically, the child is not trying to be "fair" (to all parties involved), but just "fair" to himself and his own self-interests. In other words, the child defines "fair" differently than the adult does. Of course, from a developmental standpoint, children do live/act in a more ego-centric manner, while adults are more centered on others / the community at large / the family / the group / the society / etc. (JosephASpadaro 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In what context did Jimmy Carter famously say "life is unfair?" And what does this topic have to do with language? —Tamfang 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but Malcolm Fraser equally famously said "Life wasn't meant to be easy". -- JackofOz 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I was completely put off reading M. Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled by the opening sentence: "Life is hard". I didn't want to know that. -- JackofOz 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]